Free SQE Mock Test 54 — 20 Questions + Full Answers
Solicitors Qualifying Examination · Trainee solicitors · SQE1 sits: Jan & Jul
Sections: FLK1 · Applaa proprietary paper — free to download and print
No sign-up required · 100% free · Applaa proprietary content
Applaa SQE Mock Test 54
applaa-sqe-mock-54.pdf · 20 questions
Applaa proprietary content · Free to download and print · No sign-up required
Save PDFSample Questions — SQE Mock 54
8 of 20 shownCorrect answers highlighted in green. Full explanations included.
A shopkeeper (Arthur) places a designer coat in the shop window with a price tag of £500,000. A customer (Sophia) enters the shop, places the cash on the counter, and demands to buy the item. The shopkeeper refuses to sell it. Is there a binding contract?
- A.Yes, because placing the item in the window was a unilateral offer that was accepted by the customer's cash payment.
- B.No, because the display of goods in a shop window is an invitation to treat, not an offer. Refusing to sell does not breach any contract (Fisher v Bell).
- C.Yes, because consumer protection laws force retailers to sell all displayed items automatically.
- D.No, because contracts for sales in shops require a written signed document.
- E.Yes, because the shopkeeper was silent when the customer entered, constituting acceptance.
✓ Worked Explanation
Core Concept: Invitation to Treat vs. Offer A binding contract requires a valid *offer* and *acceptance*. The display of goods in a shop window or on a shelf is an invitation to treat - an invitation for customers to make offers. It is fundamentally different from a legal offer, which can be accepted to form a contract. Step-by-Step Resolution: 1. What is an Invitation to Treat?: A display of goods with a price tag is not an offer - it is merely an expression of willingness to deal on those ter
A claimant (Charlotte) has applied for summary judgment against a defendant (Quinn) under CPR Part 24. What is the test that the court must apply to determine whether summary judgment should be granted?
- A.The claimant must prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt.
- B.The defendant has no real prospect of successfully defending the claim, and there is no other compelling reason why the case should be disposed of at trial.
- C.The value of the claim must be less than £10,000.
- D.The defendant has failed to acknowledge service of the claim form within 14 days.
- E.The dispute involves questions of international law.
✓ Worked Explanation
Core Concept: Summary Judgment under CPR Part 24 Summary judgment allows a party to obtain judgment *without a full trial* where the opposing party's case has no real prospect of success. It is a cost-effective tool that avoids unnecessary litigation. Step-by-Step Resolution: 1. Who Can Apply: Either the claimant or defendant can apply for summary judgment under CPR Part 24.2. 2. The Test: The court will grant summary judgment if: - The defendant has no real prospect of successfully defendin
A shopkeeper (William) places a designer coat in the shop window with a price tag of £9,500. A customer (Xavier) enters the shop, places the cash on the counter, and demands to buy the item. The shopkeeper refuses to sell it. Is there a binding contract?
- A.Yes, because placing the item in the window was a unilateral offer that was accepted by the customer's cash payment.
- B.No, because the display of goods in a shop window is an invitation to treat, not an offer. Refusing to sell does not breach any contract (Fisher v Bell).
- C.Yes, because consumer protection laws force retailers to sell all displayed items automatically.
- D.No, because contracts for sales in shops require a written signed document.
- E.Yes, because the shopkeeper was silent when the customer entered, constituting acceptance.
✓ Worked Explanation
Core Concept: Invitation to Treat vs. Offer A binding contract requires a valid *offer* and *acceptance*. The display of goods in a shop window or on a shelf is an invitation to treat - an invitation for customers to make offers. It is fundamentally different from a legal offer, which can be accepted to form a contract. Step-by-Step Resolution: 1. What is an Invitation to Treat?: A display of goods with a price tag is not an offer - it is merely an expression of willingness to deal on those ter
Isabella offered to sell a agricultural tractor to Caleb for £45,000. Caleb replied: 'I accept your offer, but I will pay £40,500.' Isabella did not respond. Two days later, Caleb wrote to Isabella saying: 'I accept your original offer of £45,000.' Is there a binding contract between Isabella and Caleb?
- A.Yes, because the second letter constituted a valid acceptance of the original offer.
- B.Yes, because the original offer remained open and had not been revoked by the offeror.
- C.No, because the counter-offer of the lower price killed the original offer, meaning it could no longer be accepted.
- D.No, because a contract for sale of goods must be made in writing signed by both parties.
- E.Yes, because the offeror's silence on the counter-offer constituted acceptance of the lower price.
✓ Worked Explanation
Core Concept: Counter-Offer and the Death of the Original Offer A counter-offer is a rejection of the original offer combined with a new offer on different terms. Once a counter-offer is made, the original offer is extinguished - it cannot be revived or accepted later. Step-by-Step Resolution: 1. Original Offer: Isabella offers the agricultural tractor for £45,000. 2. Counter-Offer: Caleb replies with £40,500 - this is a counter-offer, NOT an acceptance. Under Hyde v Wrench (1840), this kills t
A driver (Samuel) crashes into a pedestrian (Amelia) who is crossing the street, causing physical injuries. To establish negligence, the claimant must show that the defendant owed them a duty of care. How does the court establish if a duty of care exists for physical damage caused by positive actions?
- A.By applying the three-stage Caparo test including fair, just, and reasonable criteria in every case.
- B.By finding that the case falls within an established duty category (such as road users to other road users) where a duty is automatically owed (Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire).
- C.By checking if the defendant signed a voluntary duty registration form.
- D.By proving the defendant intended to cause physical harm.
- E.By allocating the claim to the Fast Track under CPR guidelines.
✓ Worked Explanation
Core Concept: Duty of Care - Established Categories (Robinson v Chief Constable) Not every case requires a full Caparo analysis. The Supreme Court in Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2018] confirmed that where a case falls into an *established duty category*, the duty is owed as a matter of precedent. Step-by-Step Resolution: 1. Is this an Established Category?: A driver ('Samuel') causing physical injury to a pedestrian (Amelia) through a positive act clearly falls within a
A claimant was injured when a defendant (Nora), who was engaged in operating a crane without safety barriers, caused an accident. The defendant admits they owed the claimant a duty of care and breached it, but argues that the claimant's own negligence contributed to the injury. Under the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945, what is the legal effect of contributory negligence?
- A.It acts as a complete defense, and the claimant receives no damages.
- B.It reduces the claimant's damages to the extent that is just and equitable, reflecting the claimant's share of responsibility.
- C.It has no effect on damages but requires the claimant to pay the defendant's legal costs.
- D.It shifts the burden of proof to the claimant to show that they took all reasonable precautions.
- E.It renders the claim null and void, requiring allocation to criminal arbitration.
✓ Worked Explanation
Core Concept: Contributory Negligence (Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945) Contributory negligence is a partial defence - it does not defeat the claim entirely, but reduces the damages awarded to reflect the claimant's own responsibility for their injury. Step-by-Step Resolution: 1. Identify the Defence: Nora admits negligence but argues the claimant also contributed to their own injury (e.g., not wearing a seatbelt, failing to follow safety instructions). 2. Legal Effect (LRCNA 1945
A builder (Harry) contractually agreed to construct a wall for a customer (Matthew) for £5,000. Halfway through the job, the builder states they cannot finish unless the customer pays an extra £1,000. The customer agrees. After completion, the customer refuses to pay the extra £1,000. Under Williams v Roffey Bros, is the promise to pay the extra £1,000 binding?
- A.No, because performing an existing contractual duty can never be good consideration.
- B.Yes, if the customer obtained a practical benefit (such as avoiding a penalty clause to a third party) and there was no economic duress.
- C.No, because a promise to pay more must be approved by the County Court under CPR regulations.
- D.Yes, because oral contracts are automatically binding regardless of consideration.
- E.No, because it violates Section 52 of the Law of Property Act 1925.
✓ Worked Explanation
Core Concept: Consideration and Practical Benefit (Williams v Roffey Bros) The traditional rule (Stilk v Myrick) held that performing an existing contractual duty cannot be good consideration. Williams v Roffey Bros [1990] modified this rule: performing an existing duty CAN be valid consideration if the promisee obtains a 'practical benefit'. Step-by-Step Resolution: 1. Traditional Rule: A builder promising to finish what they're already contractually bound to do provides nothing new - no consi
A builder (Amelia) contractually agreed to construct a wall for a customer (Benjamin) for £5,000. Halfway through the job, the builder states they cannot finish unless the customer pays an extra £1,000. The customer agrees. After completion, the customer refuses to pay the extra £1,000. Under Williams v Roffey Bros, is the promise to pay the extra £1,000 binding?
- A.No, because performing an existing contractual duty can never be good consideration.
- B.Yes, if the customer obtained a practical benefit (such as avoiding a penalty clause to a third party) and there was no economic duress.
- C.No, because a promise to pay more must be approved by the County Court under CPR regulations.
- D.Yes, because oral contracts are automatically binding regardless of consideration.
- E.No, because it violates Section 52 of the Law of Property Act 1925.
✓ Worked Explanation
Core Concept: Consideration and Practical Benefit (Williams v Roffey Bros) The traditional rule (Stilk v Myrick) held that performing an existing contractual duty cannot be good consideration. Williams v Roffey Bros [1990] modified this rule: performing an existing duty CAN be valid consideration if the promisee obtains a 'practical benefit'. Step-by-Step Resolution: 1. Traditional Rule: A builder promising to finish what they're already contractually bound to do provides nothing new - no consi
Download the PDF for all 20 questions + full mark scheme
Download PDFFrequently Asked Questions
Is this SQE mock exam free?+
Yes. All 250 Applaa SQE mock exams are completely free — no registration, no paywall. Download PDF or view in browser.
What is FLK1 in the SQE exam?+
FLK1 (Functioning Legal Knowledge 1) is the first part of the SQE1 assessment, testing substantive and procedural law across multiple legal practice areas with multiple-choice questions. Each Applaa SQE mock covers FLK1-style questions with full explanations.
How many SQE practice questions are in each mock?+
Each Applaa SQE mock test contains 20 functioning legal knowledge questions with worked explanations, mirroring the question style of the real SQE1 assessment.
Are these SQE mock papers relevant for 2025?+
Yes. Applaa's SQE mock papers are updated for the current SQE1 syllabus and are suitable for candidates sitting SQE1 in 2025 and 2026.
Download This Mock
Free PDF — 20 questions with worked answers. Print it or attempt offline.
Download PDF FreeNo sign-up · No paywall · Applaa proprietary
Paper Info
- Exam
- SQE
- Mock number
- 54 of 250
- Questions
- 20
- Format
- Multiple Choice (MCQ)
- Sections
- 1
- Audience
- Trainee solicitors
- Timing
- SQE1 sits: Jan & Jul
- Copyright
- Applaa Proprietary
Sections Covered
- FLK1
AI step-by-step guidance
Appy Buddy in the Applaa desktop app guides you through every question with Socratic AI tutoring — explains why each answer is right or wrong.
Download Applaa Free